1. Discussion on issue 45

Jacek posted his proposal to dist-app and sopa-builders last week as
promised. No responses yet from either list.

The TF discussed the proposal, approved some small changes, and approved
sending it to the larger WG as a proposal for resolving issue 45.

Action: Jacek will change (i) syntax of
proposal to make it more obvious that his proposed faultcode additions
are part of a new (rpc) namespace, (ii) make the faultcode names
consistent with the TF's decision to use "service" and "procedure"
instead of "object" and "method". Changed proposal to be posted to
dist-app.

Action: David to put revised issue 45
proposal onto WG agenda

ActionACTION: David to add a new issue
"should there be a faultcode for encoding errors?"

2. Discussion of ChrisF's CorrelationID proposal

Initial discussion centered around thr format of the correlation
identifier itself. Two views:

(i) it should be a URI because this is web-centric

(ii) no format should be specified because it only has to be
understood by the sending application

A second discussion was on the purpose of the proposal. Several views
expressed:

(i) a correlation mechanism is needed therefore XMLP should specify
one

(ii) while a correlation mechanism is certainly useful and probably
needed, there are many other useful/needed mecahnisms, and we should
be looking to specify all such mechanisms in some other venue

(iii) the correlation mechanism is a useful test-bed extension for
RPC and Transport Binding TF's. If there is not a large cost in
finishing the proposal, we should seriously consider so doing.

There was general agreement that the proposal as it stands is good
quality, and will not actually take much effort to finish up. Therefore,
Chris and Henrik volunteered to each make a round of comments on the
existing proposal and bring it back to the RPC TF in time for its next
telcon.

ActionACTION: Chris and Henrik to post
a new/commented version of the Correlation proposal by EOB tuesday.